From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Sun May 25 16:01:19 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 25 May 2003 16:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs24349-133.austin.rr.com ([24.243.49.133] helo=cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19K4UJ-0004co-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 25 May 2003 16:01:12 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h4PNCx67010445 for ; Sun, 25 May 2003 18:13:00 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h4PNCxLc010444 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 25 May 2003 18:12:59 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 18:12:59 -0500 From: Jordan DeLong To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions Message-ID: <20030525231259.GA10234@allusion.net> References: <20030525000203.GA2398@allusion.net> <20030525224023.37472.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030525224023.37472.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-archive-position: 5392 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 03:40:23PM -0700, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > la djorden cusku di'e > > > > I think this all rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of lojban > > > > word classes. People like to think about gismu, cmavo and lujvo. > > > > But it's actually brivla, cmavo and cmene.=20 > > >=20 > > > Morphologically, the classes are gismu, cmavo, lujvo, fu'ivla and cme= ne. > >=20 > > Right. > >=20 > > > Syntactically, the classes are BRIVLA, CMENE, KOhA, A, BAI, TAhE, VAU, > > etc... > >=20 > > I.e. brivla, cmavo and cmene, as I mentioned. >=20 > cmavo is not a syntactic class, it is a morphological class. It is also a class of syntactic classes. (And as you hopefully can tell, that is to what I was refering). > GOhA for example is syntactically much closer to BRIVLA than > to any other selma'o. gismu are priviledged morphologically, > not syntactically, over other brivla. In a similar way CV cmavo > are morphologically priviledged over CVV, and CV'V cmavo. Sure, but that's not relevant to the issue of this brivla privledge concept. > > > > Gismu, lujvo and fu'ivla > > > > are just different types of brivla; none are more privledged than > > > > the others. > > >=20 > > > If that were so, then why all the fuss when a new gismu is proposed, > > > but no fuss when a new lujvo or fu'ivla is proposed?=20 > >=20 > > Because the gismu list is frozen, and there's no reason to prefer > > a gismu rather than another brivla.=20 >=20 > And yet people do seem to prefer gismu. They are used much more frequently > than other brivla. Frequency of use is only because they are the only words with set standards about use. Furthremore, whether people prefer gismu does not prove anything about whether they are privledged. People unknowingly (and in your case sometimes knowingly) misuse lojban features all the time (especially gadri (in all cases; but of course this is mostly the fault of the lack of clarity in the language prescription on the subject)). [...] > > If you ask why it is frozen (as you no doubt will do); it would not > > be smart to allow open season on gismu: the knee-jerk creation of > > gismu for things which can be other brivla damage our ability to > > increase rafsi for lujvo in the future (and in the process betrays > > a lack of understanding about the purpose of the different types > > of brivla). >=20 > Hmm... {parji} doesn't seem to limit any increase in future rafsi > availability, because par, paj, pai, pa'i are all already taken. [...] It takes the "parj" rafsi. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+0U37DrrilS51AZ8RAvotAJwMdf5o5QhI4OaWZRzuNYdjGZHjAQCdF+SS mgt2ACkYTYfITeAz5rec5BM= =XpU1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV--